Template:Did you know nominations/Tiféret Israel Synagogue attack

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tiféret Israel Synagogue attack

(

)

... that the Tiféret Israel Synagogue, the oldest in Caracas, Venezuela, was profanated during the 2008–2009 Gaza War? BBC: "An armed gang has ransacked the oldest Jewish synagogue in the Venezuelan capital Caracas after occupying the building for several hours. (...) Jewish leaders say tensions have risen since Venezuela broke diplomatic relations with Israel this month over its recent military offensive in Gaza."

Reviewed: Fumi Kaneko

Created/expanded by NoonIcarus (talk). Self-nominated at 19:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC).

ALT1: ... that the Tiféret Israel Synagogue, the oldest in Caracas, Venezuela, was profaned during the 2008–2009 Gaza War? BBC: "An armed gang has ransacked the oldest Jewish synagogue in the Venezuelan capital Caracas after occupying the building for several hours. (...) Jewish leaders say tensions have risen since Venezuela broke diplomatic relations with Israel this month over its recent military offensive in Gaza."

You have nominated the wrong article. I suggest you start again. When you do, make sure you use the correct article in the hook. Schwede 66 10:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I'm so sorry, I thought I linked the article in question. Is it possible to reformat the current hook in order to solve this? The name of the nomination is the same of the article. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that this nomination page does indeed refer to the correct article, you could just add a new hook (ALT1). At DYK, we don’t reformat hooks as the discussion about the nomination would become messy; we simply add new hooks. I’ve started it for you; just add to it. Schwede 66 17:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thank you very much. I have striken the old hook and included an alternate one with a new format, linking and bolding to the nominated article. Please let me know if there are any other changes, and my apologies for the inconveniences. NoonIcarus (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The substantial issue has been fixed and this can now go to review (not my area of interest, so I shall pass). I suggest the the "article expansion" tag is a problem, though. It's a maintenance tag and as far as I know, we don't run articles with maintenance tags. Schwede 66 23:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"Profanated" is not a word - "profaned" is. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: My apologies. I have striken the typo and fixed the word. I hope that the MoS of the nominations allow this. NoonIcarus (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thks - I just substituted the correct word (although possibly other ones are better), which is usual here. To be clear, I was just commenting, not starting a review. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Full review still needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough. The hook facts are cited inline and the article is neutral. I detected some close paraphrasing and rewrote several sentences. A QPQ has been done, so this is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)